From The Rhetorical Tradition this week I read the "Encomium of Helen" by Plato, and Isocrates' "Against the Sophists". From Cross Talk I read Ede and Lunsford's "Audience Addressed/Audience Invoked". In addition to these readings I also read "What Socrates Said - And Why Gorgias did not Respond" by Bernard E. Jacob, which can be accessed by the link below:
I find myself siding with Socrates throughout this dialogue, although, I did recognized that he immediately put Gorgias at a disadvantage by restricting his rhetorical responses to short statements. It struck me as unfair seeing as Gorgias has made his name (and attracted that very crowd) by his rhetorical talents only to be restricted from using them. Socrates limits their dialectical wrestling match to work on his terms – which in turn works for his benefit and, not surprisingly, the audience’s enjoyment as well. However, this tactic was perhaps the only way that Socrates could win because Gorgias could take control of any conversation through his rhetoric, as he makes clear during their discussion.
Interestingly, throughout reading this dialogue I was constantly reminded of Nietzsche’s quote that Dr. Wexler put in our syllabus, “Is dialectics only a form of revenge in Socrates?” which this one seems to clearly illustrate – especially when Socrates makes it very clear that if he were to be killed by the state that they, those in power, would be the wicked party in his death. His attitude during the conversation shows his disdain for a specific kind of rhetoric, which can be used in politics or public service only through deceit and flattery. In addition, this tactic of Socrates allows him to take on major figures during his time, Gorgias being a popular speaker and Polus as his student – but especially Callicles, who I believe is supposed to represent an up and coming political figure. Socrates’ dialectics seem to be the only sort of “revenge” that he can grab at from his lower social status. He is able to show these high status individuals to be without a reasonable foundation in their ideologies, and illustrate how he, a lowly plebian, can master these “masters”.
Moreover, I tend to agree with his view of rhetoric. It doesn’t seem to me that rhetoric alone can lead to knowledge or an understanding of truth – but can be a powerful tool in conveying those truths discovered by different means. Socrates uses his form of rhetoric to convey these truths, which does seem a bit ironic, but he is clearly condemning a dishonorable use of rhetoric. He obviously has a great grasp of rhetoric which is why he can condemn it so vehemently – but his understanding of rhetoric is seen especially in how he easily highjacks Gorgias’ audience. Just as Ede and Lunsford described in “Audience Addressed/ Audience Invoked”, Socrates finds a balance between molding his views to those of the audience, and using his rhetorical prowess to convey his views clearly to the crowd. Callicles would perhaps represent one favoring the Audience Addressed approach as he is said to change his views depending on who he is speaking to. What I felt was conveyed through this dialectic is the immense power that rhetoric can wield but with a caution that it must be used in an honorable way. Yes, Socrates condemns rhetoric, but he does so only because during his time it was being used by those in power with unjust motives.
Interestingly, throughout reading this dialogue I was constantly reminded of Nietzsche’s quote that Dr. Wexler put in our syllabus, “Is dialectics only a form of revenge in Socrates?” which this one seems to clearly illustrate – especially when Socrates makes it very clear that if he were to be killed by the state that they, those in power, would be the wicked party in his death. His attitude during the conversation shows his disdain for a specific kind of rhetoric, which can be used in politics or public service only through deceit and flattery. In addition, this tactic of Socrates allows him to take on major figures during his time, Gorgias being a popular speaker and Polus as his student – but especially Callicles, who I believe is supposed to represent an up and coming political figure. Socrates’ dialectics seem to be the only sort of “revenge” that he can grab at from his lower social status. He is able to show these high status individuals to be without a reasonable foundation in their ideologies, and illustrate how he, a lowly plebian, can master these “masters”.
Moreover, I tend to agree with his view of rhetoric. It doesn’t seem to me that rhetoric alone can lead to knowledge or an understanding of truth – but can be a powerful tool in conveying those truths discovered by different means. Socrates uses his form of rhetoric to convey these truths, which does seem a bit ironic, but he is clearly condemning a dishonorable use of rhetoric. He obviously has a great grasp of rhetoric which is why he can condemn it so vehemently – but his understanding of rhetoric is seen especially in how he easily highjacks Gorgias’ audience. Just as Ede and Lunsford described in “Audience Addressed/ Audience Invoked”, Socrates finds a balance between molding his views to those of the audience, and using his rhetorical prowess to convey his views clearly to the crowd. Callicles would perhaps represent one favoring the Audience Addressed approach as he is said to change his views depending on who he is speaking to. What I felt was conveyed through this dialectic is the immense power that rhetoric can wield but with a caution that it must be used in an honorable way. Yes, Socrates condemns rhetoric, but he does so only because during his time it was being used by those in power with unjust motives.